CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
Madam Assistant Speaker informs me that I have 1 minute and 30 seconds remaining to speak on the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I note that I started speaking last night at 9.52 p.m., so strictly speaking I should have 2 minutes, but I will not quibble with the Chair, because that would be inappropriate.
All I want to do in closing is address the question of public access. It has been comprehensively dealt with in the bill. It is not an issue between the parties. The deed of settlement requires the Crown to grant public access easements over the forests prior to the settlement date, and we can deal with that issue in the Committee stage. Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the issue, and they are substantially the same as the clauses that the Committee of the whole House debated last night in the context of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill; I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 250, which brought into that bill clauses 130A and 130B. The intent is the same, even if there are minor differences in wording.
With those closing comments, I believe that all the issues have been considered and that there is no impediment to the bill proceeding through all its stages as quickly as possible.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
I naturally stand in support of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I intend to take only a very short call. I listened very carefully to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s second reading speech in the House last night, and I am pretty confident that he covered all the technical aspects of the bill, and also highlighted some of the important issues around the process that was undertaken by the Central North Island Iwi Collective.
If I have any comment at all to contribute to this discussion, it is about the process. It is important to acknowledge the leadership of the iwi collective leadership by Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu, and also the efforts of his executive team and all those tribal leaders who made a contribution to the process and also to the manner in which the allocation of interests to all iwi concerned will be undertaken.
It is also important to comment about the effect that this particular process has had nationwide where there are collective interests involving a number of iwi over a number of areas, and relating to specific claims. It seems that a forum for the representation of common interests is very, very popular. I have met with a number of iwi around the country since the central North Island agreement was signed who wish to look at a similar process so that they themselves can resolve issues that they all share as iwi. For example, the Muriwhenua forum will look at a number of areas, including Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe, Landcorp farms, forests, rivers, and mountains. They themselves will decide how individual iwi interests will be represented and also how those interests will be distributed. Interestingly enough, I met with iwi from Wharekauri—Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga—who are also looking at a similar process. I am sure that over the next few months we will see similar arrangements being implemented around the country.
The way in which the central North Island settlement was reached has gathered a lot of momentum and a lot of support. It is important to congratulate all those who have been involved in the central North Island settlement to date, and to thank them for the contributions they have made. I thank my colleagues Dr Cullen and the Minister of Māori Affairs for the great work they did, and I acknowledge the independent facilitator, Wira Gardiner, who conducted the whole operation like a military exercise. I do not mean he shot prisoners; I mean he made everyone stand to attention—but I was getting worried sometimes! [Interruption] And Matt Te Pou; there are so many whom I could mention, but if I go through them individually, I am bound to offend by leaving somebody out.
I also acknowledge the contribution to this debate by Chris Finlayson. I was not sure whether he was talking about the bill or auditioning for a job as Crown prosecutor, but I thank him for his contribution. Kia ora tātou.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this
I am pleased to rise to take a call on the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. This bill came to the Māori Affairs Committee at the same time as the bill we dealt with last night, the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, and the select committee travelled to the central North Island to hear submissions on the bills at the same time. I think it is a tribute to the significance of this bill and its ground-breaking approach that there was a very, very good attendance of the interests represented by this bill, as for there was for the Te Arawa bill as well, and that there was generally widespread support for it. So it is very good to be here this morning to see the return of the bill to the House and to anticipate its passing into law later this week.
This is an important bill, as has already been referred to. It is important to remind ourselves that it addresses only claims as far as licensed Crown forest land is concerned, and that there will be future negotiations over various packages for each of the iwi in the collective. I was interested to hear the honourable member who spoke previously, the Hon Mita Ririnui, talking about how this bill, and the approach in it, appear to have acted as a springboard for other settlements across the motu, in terms of the way it is possible for various iwi and various interests to come together in a settlement when there are interests in common. That obviously makes sense if having to wait to deal with them individually would not result in a better settlement and would also result in a further time delay. I look forward to the Hon Mita Ririnui outlining several other areas where the Government has been engaging with iwi over the last wee while since the central North Island settlement, and to seeing some of those settlements come down the line, as well. I am very interested also to see that progress appears to be being made in terms of settlements in Tai Tokerau.
I would just flag a slight anxiety of the Opposition members that there appears to have been a rush to settle these claims. That is not to take away from the importance of doing so or to take away from the fact that the iwi involved have been willing to engage in the process in this last 12 months. After all, they are not witless, either. They know when they are ready to settle, and if they see a readiness on the other side, which they obviously did, then they have been willing to move to the table. It bodes well for the future, and that is good, considering that there had seemed to be a bit of going to sleep on the job in the previous 8 years of this Labour Government.
In any event, we had very good gatherings at the select committee. I will refer briefly to one or two issues. The mandate issues that arise in all settlements certainly were not absent from the select committee hearings on this bill. Several submitters opposed the bill on the basis that the collective had no mandate to represent them, and that the inclusion of their claims in the bill was of prejudice to them, because it removed their ability to pursue their claims through other avenues, such as the Waitangi Tribunal or the courts. Issues of mandate were raised in relation to Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Whāoa, Ngāti Tahu, and Ngāti Rangitihi. The submissions from all of them were well put to the committee. They were certainly aired and given a good hearing.
But in the end what is unique here—and we have acknowledged this already—is that the Government has basically seen fit to let the iwi sort through issues that are internal to them. This has been unlike previous matters, where the Government has tended to go where it should not tread. It appears that in the end one has to accept certain mandates, because there seems to be a majority there, and because various interests have been mandated for other purposes. That does not mean to say that those who feel aggrieved ought to be ignored. Hopefully, the collective in time will find a way to bring those parties into this settlement as well. I understand that in the case of Ngāti Hikairo, since the select committee went to Taupō there may have been some progress on their issues in relation to the Taurewa Forest. If so, that is good.
I would again urge the tribes within the collective to take that issue seriously—I am not suggesting that they have not—and I hope that when this bill passes into law, they will take all possible steps to bring those interests into the settlement. This is a big settlement; it is a settlement that will provide a very potent springboard for the tribes of the central North Island. It is a very sensible one in the commercial sense, because it keeps the forest estate under one entity. That makes sense, undoubtedly. It also makes sense that everyone who is entitled to benefit from this settlement does so in the future.
The other matter that I would like to refer to is the allocation model and the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. I raised this issue in my first reading speech. We were interested as a select committee to explore the issues involved with submitters. The proposed allocation for the commercial benefits in schedule 3 of the bill appears to be problematic for some iwi, but, again, the collective itself proposed that to the Government. The tikanga-based allocation model, or resolution process for the allocation of land interests, of course, is still to come. It is still before us. There are some anxieties about that, as well. It interests me again that the iwi have proposed that to the Crown. It is good that the Crown accepted that, given the experience we had over the fisheries model—although it has been laid to rest some time ago, and we have seen the allocation of fisheries to iwi over the last 2 or 3 years.
This model tries a new approach, which leads us to the iwi themselves. After all, they are the ones who know best, or who ought to know best, who has mana whenua in the various areas covering the Kaingaroa Forest. So that does seem to be a sensible place to start. The Opposition will be watching with interest, and should we make it into Government we will certainly be monitoring and supporting the process. As I say, it makes sense to leave those internal matters to the collective itself, but it does require great leadership. Maybe it requires the various individual entities to put to one side their own interests, in an attempt to make sure that the collective remains strong and united, and to realise that everything is possible if one continues with dialogue and kōrero. Anything is possible, if one does that. So we look forward to seeing how that model works, and obviously if it is being followed elsewhere, then maybe that is the way that other tribes will be able to see their way forward too. Thank you.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. The Māori Affairs Committee heard submissions on this bill, and I was a member of the committee. This will be one of the few times I give some self-praise, because I think the way in which the committee handled the various views on this bill would have given all the submitters a sense of satisfaction that they had received a fair hearing.
One of the observations I made during that whole process, however, was that I was mindful of the oft-stated phrase used to advertise State of Origin rugby league matches in Australia: “state against state, mate against mate”. Well, in the case of this bill—and I am not wanting to be derisive about the whole process—the sad part for me during the hearing process was to see whānau against whānau, elder brother or elder sister against younger brother or younger sister. Although I sympathise with the views of both parties, I think when we have settlements affecting land, and, in particular, mana whenua, then certainly we will see more of that kind of division. That is the challenge that awaits the leadership involved in this settlement.
Having said that, I acknowledge the real leadership that was exercised by those who represented their respective iwi at the negotiating table. I think some of the decisions they made showed true leadership. One of those decisions was a preparedness to give up a percentage of what was already agreed to, to allow another iwi to have a bigger slice of the cake, so to speak. I want to acknowledge that sort of leadership.
There are a number of issues that are worth making mention of, and, in particular, the issue of mana whenua. Although this bill is essentially, in the first instance, about the allocation of rental funds held by the Crown Forestry Rental Forestry Trust, the fear of many of those who had some resistance to the bill was that it might set a benchmark in terms of the exercise of mana whenua. As I say, that will be a real challenge for those involved. I will give members an example. Part of this settlement is known as the Taurewa Forest. One hapū made private submissions to me to say that in their view, and not only in their view but also by virtue of their tikanga, they felt that that part of the settlement should be allocated to them. That is an issue that will have to be dealt with by the leadership.
The other point I will make with regard to the issue of mana whenua is that we received several submissions, both written and in person, from a particular submitter, all emphasising the fact that in terms of history and his tribe’s tikanga, his particular tribe owned a majority of the land that this settlement is about. His real fear was that if this bill was to go through in its present form, then the percentages that were used for the allocation of Crown Forestry Rental Trust funds and future rentals would determine how the land would eventually be distributed amongst the claimants. His concern was such that he has an application with the Māori Land Court, and I understand that he wanted an urgent hearing with the Waitangi Tribunal. But at the end of the day we have to take into consideration the fact that the negotiators, who may not have had a 100 percent mandate but certainly had a majority mandate, have made the decision. They have made the decision on behalf of their iwi. Who are we to amend that decision? Any amendment would take the whole process back to square one, and we all know that, for this particular settlement, the negotiators have had to travel a very long and rocky path to get to the point where we are at the moment.
I will also make reference to Ngāti Rangitihi, who were at the table very early in the piece, but, as part of the mandate process, quite clearly did not have the support of their people to accept the settlement. Whatever the argument might be as to why they did not get their support, I think it is to the credit of those who have negotiated this settlement that they have allowed an opportunity for Ngāti Rangitihi to get the required mandate. I understand that postal voting closes on 6 October—I am not quite sure about the date, but it is very soon. Those people have until Christmas Eve 2008 to indicate whether they have the required support, and I think it is to the credit of the negotiators of this settlement that they have allowed that to happen.
Suffice it to say, New Zealand First supports the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will be supporting the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. It has been interesting to hear the contributions so far about the complexities of the process, about the submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, and about how to resolve the unresolved issues. The Green Party will be supporting this bill.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e hoa mā, i tēnei ata. The date 25 June 2008 was a unique moment in parliamentary history. The downside for me was that I was not here. I was, in fact, away at a tangi. I arrived back in the House to take a call in ACT’s slot, following on from my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples. But one could not help but feel, though, that something significant had happened on that day. I am, of course, referring to the first reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.
As the member of Parliament for Waiariki, I was very disappointed that I was not here to witness a piece of history. Engari, e kore e taea te karo i te karanga ā-mate. One cannot escape the call of those who have passed on. The taxi driver commented on the migration of Māori here, as we headed from the airport back to Parliament. He talked about, and the people talked about, kuia and koroua, whānau, children, babies in arms, all having been drawn to this place to be a part of history in the making, and about seeing that everywhere one turned, there were Māori. When I finally got into the House, the public galleries that were crowded earlier in the day had thinned out as people had moved off for kai and to celebrate the event.
The Māori Party acknowledges that day. We acknowledge those who made it happen, te ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu, the iwi negotiators, Matiu Te Pou, the Ministers, and Dr Cullen in particular, and Wira Gardiner on the pursuit of kotahitanga as the underlying principle, the focus of unity. As I did during the first reading debate, I give credit where credit is due, and I acknowledge, as I say, Dr Michael Cullen for leading a new approach that sees us considering a heap of settlements prior to the closing-off of Parliament.
The Māori Affairs Committee report describes the complexity that is associated with the mandate issues of iwi within the collective, but clearly the approach taken to achieve kotahitanga within ourselves has been achieved, for the most part. We certainly heard in the select committee, as other speakers have spoken about, from those who had issues, but, considering the task, Matiu Te Pou and Wira Gardiner must take a great deal of credit for the result. This would never have been a straightforward procedure.
The iwi making up the collective, as we have heard, are Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whare, Raukawa, and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū that are all detailed in the bill. There is space there for Ngāti Rangitihi, and I am hopeful of hearing in the Committee stage about the progress of the meeting that was held over the weekend. I have not been able to catch up on the detail of that. I am sure that the Minister will help us out on this occasion. The collective is a significant grouping of iwi.
Having followed this process from the start, it was pleasing to me to see the move away from caution like that shown at the hui held at Waitetoko last year, through to kotahitanga, to unity. I am clear in myself that getting to consensus views would not have been reached without fierce and robust debate in that sort of forum—and so it should be. There is much at stake here, so all of the lead-in should be given the utmost scrutiny.
Amongst all of this is Ngāti Whāoa, who, for all intents and purposes, may be classed as a small player. I spoke about this matter in relation to the Te Arawa affiliates bill. The desire on the part of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa to uncouple itself from Ngāti Tahu is clear, and I have statements from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa to confirm that. I will raise that issue again in the Committee stage, but it is a major issue. Why? Because Ngāti Whāoa has not insignificant interests in the central North Island forests under mana whenua. It is a small iwi, with significant interests, but its place in the scheme of things will be gone, lost in fact by way of its being, firstly, coupled with Ngāti Tahu, then, secondly, wrapped into the Te Arawa affiliates. I will continue to do the best I can to represent the interests of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, which has asked me to take up its concerns.
We know that this settlement, like every settlement, carries with it the legacy of generations that have gone before. The central North Island settlement is no different from others; people have passed on but have left behind matters that can be addressed only within and between the hapū and iwi who form this collective. I remain hopeful that matters of concern will be sorted out internally, for it is clear that damage done between and among whanau, hapū, and iwi will be long lasting and talked about on our marae for years to come. Mr Pita Paraone spoke about that in his speech.
As we now know, mandate concerns were raised to do with Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Hikairo, and Ngāti Rangitihi, and, as I say, Ngāti Whāoa and Ngāti Tahu. There were accusations of people feeling they were not receiving basic information, suggestions that there were inconsistencies around all of those who could say they spoke for the tribe, and reports of people being shut down at hui. Although I and other members at the select committee may have concerns about some of the accusations, it is significant that the Crown believes that those interests are best dealt with by those iwi and hapū themselves. I have to say I concur with that view. Iwi must hold their own to account and deal with issues internally. I must add, to be clear, that I mean this should apply when the disagreement is intra-iwi. Where there is inter-iwi disagreement and a settlement is at stake, I say the new model of rangatira ki te rangatira with experienced facilitators can work and would save a heap of stress at the business end. It is important that resolution is achieved if it results in long-term gains for the people.
Today we acknowledge the significance of the $400 million - plus settlement as providing a foundation for the future of the people of Te Waiariki. Much has been made of the return of 176,000 hectares of land, which will make Māori the largest forestry operator in the country. Much has been made also of the collective ownership, the large natural grouping, that brings together the seven iwi representing over 100,000 Māori. We know, too, that the settlement will make those iwi amongst the largest investors in Aotearoa. Those are all significant features of the settlement, but we cannot lose sight of the injustice that is part and parcel of every settlement process, which is that, at its core, compensation is only ever a fraction of the losses experienced.
The Māori Party will not be quiet about the ongoing anomalies that must be responded to in the broader context of settlement policy. We will continue to raise the issues around cross-claims and time frames, and around decisions being made in haste. But today is a day to recognise the precedent established by this bill. This settlement is innovative in the way in which it is iwi driven and tikanga based. The tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process, set out in schedule 2 of the bill, is a really interesting concept, which we welcome as the initiative of the iwi involved. The concept involved three different criteria, in the consideration of mana whenua, ahi kā roa, ahi tahutahu, and ahi mātaotao in three different tiers: negotiation, mediation, and adjudication. This provides an innovative model for other iwi to examine.
The matter of the splits of rental moneys to iwi versus mana whenua is at the heart of concerns by submitters, but I will talk about that at the Committee stage. Ngāti Manawa, for example, has significant mana whenua interests over the land, yet it gets only 6 percent of the rentals. An explanation of that would be appreciated. It is of note, too, that the Waitangi Tribunal, in its report on the Native Land Court’s investigation of Kaingaroa No. 1, suggested a fluid, overlapping, and complex layering of interests. It may well be that the process that the central North Island negotiators and iwi have come up with satisfactorily addresses that point, although the proof will be in the pudding.
Perhaps a mark of how people have viewed this settlement has been the lack of strong and coordinated public opposition to it. Although issues have been raised, it would be fair to say that the unique process the collective has followed has received a positive response. In fact, only a week after the signing, three northern leaders drew out comparisons for arrangements that might work, say, for Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hine, and Ngāti Whātua. Rāniera Tau, Ērima Hēnare, and the Māori Party list member Naida Glavish have sent a call to their respective iwi organisations to explore the potential of the central North Island process for advancing their own collective plans.
At the other end of the country, Te Wai Pounamu, Ngāi Tahu has also been watching on, in terms of how this settlement will impact on its potential relativity top-up as it relates to the billion-dollar cap. In June my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples asked the Minister of Finance about the implications of this bill for the ratchet clause relativity mechanism. His response was that the point at which such a mechanism would apply could be expected to occur probably within the next 2 to 3 years, in terms of reaching the point expressed in 1994 dollar terms. But as Ōtākou rūnanga chairman Tahu Pōtiki pointed out, “there is definitely some subjectivity with the whole thing.” There are so many eyes on the central North Island, watching the progression of this settlement and contemplating what it will mean. There is every opportunity for the economic development of the iwi involved in the settlement to prosper, and every opportunity to increase the original investment and to generate greater value and higher returns.
And so we come to the culmination of over two decades of energetic and inspired negotiation to bring this claim to a conclusion—or at least tomorrow it will be concluded. This bill represents a great deal of work since the passage of the Crown Forest Assets Act in 1989. The central North Island forest estate is an area not just of economic value but of huge cultural significance as well. The generosity of iwi in agreeing to preserve and enhance existing public access is an incredible statement from the iwi to the nation. We in this House must always remember that gift. The Māori Party will support this bill at its second reading.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I start by congratulating, first, the claimants themselves, then the Government, and then our little Māori Affairs Committee on a job reasonably well done. I will take a couple of minutes to talk specifically about what I think comes out of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I will not talk specifically about what is in it, because I think although much is made of the allocation model, the tikanga-based resolution process, and although it sounds really good in a fantasy world, there are still people outside of that, even though we have a tikanga-based resolution process, who think the deal is not up to scratch. I suppose it tells us that no matter what system we have, there will always be somebody outside the process who might think the deal is not right.
One of the more interesting facts I found out about this bill during the select process was the result of a question I asked one of the submitters. It was about mana whenua, it was about property rights—it went down that avenue. I asked that person, who will remain anonymous, about the land shares that that person and that person’s family had had for years and years. The answer to the question was that they had gone back even further, to communal ownership. I thought, OK, I can cop that. I accept that that is a line of thinking that goes pretty well with the settlement. But I got to thinking about who compensates the person who had the individual shares. At the establishment of the Native Land Court, communally owned land was individualised, but now that we are going back to a point in time before the individualisation of land, who compensates those people who have just been left out, vis-à-vis the individual shareholders in the land? So whatever we do, out of this we will create, I think, another set of grievances, more than with any other settlement I have seen.
I am not saying this is a bad settlement and a bad bill. I am saying that out of this, we have created, most probably, if people are clued up—and I am sure they are—a situation where in 5 or 10 years’ time, they will trot back in and say they have been hard-done-by and can we please sort it out, because we were the ones who made the grievance and gave them the ammunition to have a go at us. National will support this bill going through, and I just wanted to raise that issue, because I do think it is a huge issue.
I will read out a little paragraph on the select committee’s report on the bill: “Ten submitters implicitly or explicitly disputed the mandate of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa to agree to the inclusion of their claims in the settlement bill. The key concern underpinning all these submissions was that Ngāti Manawa should have done better out of the settlement, given their strong mana whenua interests in the Kaingaroa. Some of the submitters also asserted that Ngāti Moewhare … had been excluded from the settlement negotiations, or that Ngāti Manawa representatives had not had a significant role in” the central North Island negotiations.
I want to bring something up at this stage, and you can rule me out of order if you want to, Madam Assistant Speaker. This process raises the issue, when we are dealing with Treaty negotiations and Treaty settlements in the House, that it does not matter how many submitters the select committee gets, and it does not matter how many are opposed and in favour of the settlement, the select committee has no jurisdiction to change the settlement. In fact, the House itself does not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to change the settlement. So with all due respect to the mana of the House, this process is a bit of a farce. It is a bit of a farce in terms of when we expect the community to come to us and say: “Excuse me, these are my feelings on this legislation.” But we cannot change it, so what is the point? Is the point itself just giving the community the opportunity to say hello and air its grievances, and to then go away and nothing happens? I think that is a Clayton’s way of dealing with issues.
It might make them feel nice that they fronted up to the select committee and had their say, but nothing comes of it. I was not astounded but gobsmacked that there was a Speaker’s ruling on this matter that pertained even to an amendment to Treaty legislation. I can certainly understand why. I am not quibbling and arguing against it; I am just pointing out the fact that when we are dealing with these issues, it seems a bit on the nose that we call for submissions, that we spend money going up the line and hiring out a hall at the hotel, and that we call hundreds of people together so that parliamentarians can listen to their submissions, only to find out that we cannot do anything about it.
I just wanted to raise that issue. Maybe in the future a select committee, or even the House, can look at this issue in a bipartisan manner. How do we deal with the issue of submitters coming to the House and asking us to change something because of the way they feel about it? Instead of saying no, maybe in the future there will be some way of saying that we will look at it and see whether we can change it. That is one of the main points I want to make in respect of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.
The last point is that I think the people who have worked on this bill have come up with a way of dealing with issues that is particular and peculiar to them. So I commend those who have been involved; there are too many to name. I think this is a watershed time in terms of Treaty settlements, and, hopefully, some other people can look at how the process has been achieved and at the road we have gone down, so they can follow the lead of those involved in the bill. But we will not hold up the show too much longer. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.